Friday, March 16, 2007

Boston Globe: Romney's Words Grow Hard On Immigration

Romney criticizes McCain on immigration in 2007, calling it “amnesty”

In 2005, he thought it was “quite different from amnesty”

Scott Helman, per usual, has the story.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new flip flop comes to light just about everyday.

Mitt Romney has had more flip-flops than Joseph Smith had wives.

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'll get no flips from Frank Stallone. He has been documented as saying "NO AMNESTY". Frank Stallone opposed it in the 80's (his favorite decade), and he opposes it now.

Frank Stallone is the only candidate who supports using union pension funds to pay for all illegal workers to be deported back to wherever they are from.

No amnesty, no 70's haircuts, and no Bob Newhart reruns!

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys are being unfair.

In all fairness to Mitt his comments on immigration were 2 years ago and he hadn't decided to become an official candidate yet.

1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't determine if this last post is sarcasm or a genuine attempt to explain Romney's pandering to conservatives.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, it's not fair to bring this up because it wasn't said when he was supposed to be pandering to the anti-illegal crowd. Just like we shouldn't bring up his abortion comments.


3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...;_ylt=Aje7XbKNChPDdEAT6bkzQJ_MWM0F

Great way to jumpstart your campaign.

3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like McCain and ROmney have something in common 321

5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like someone to show me where Romney held a position, then changed it for political expediency, and then changed back to the original position, again for political reasons.

I see a guy who has changed on a lot of issues, though I still can't see his flip-flops.

I'm not saying he doesn't have explaining to do, it's just that I think the word "change" is more accurate than flip-flop. And I admit he's a new man on some issues you would hope one could be consistence on. I really would like to see a flip-flop though.

Any out there?

7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to know one issue where Mitt Romney disagrees (now, i.e. post 2005) with the Religious Right (do not give me examples from before 2005 where he always disagreed with the religious right please).


Probably not. What a con-artist. I cannot believe people are falling for this "prodical son" routine!

8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huckabee gets vindicated against baseless complaints.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — The Arkansas Ethics Commission unanimously dismissed a complaint Friday over Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee's destruction of computer hard drives as he left the governor's office this year.

The commission voted 4-0 to dismiss the complaint filed by Jim Parsons, said Graham Sloan, the commission's executive director.

In his complaint, Parsons claimed the former governor violated a state law requiring the retention of financial records for ballot initiatives for four years.

Parsons claimed Huckabee may have destroyed records for a 2005 highway bond proposal that was rejected by voters. Huckabee had pushed for the bond plan.

Last month, the commission dismissed another complaint filed by Parsons against Huckabee. Parsons had argued that Huckabee violated the state Freedom of Information Act by crushing the hard drives before he left office in January.

Huckabee, who has formed an exploratory committee to run for president, has defended the destruction of the drives and said it was done to protect sensitive information, such as employees' or constituents' Social Security numbers and credit card information.

The former governor spent the remaining $13,000 in the governor's emergency fund to destroy the computer equipment before he left office Jan. 9.

10:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very misleading hit piece.

Go to the audio and listen for yourself.

In 2005, he says that Bush's idea of direct amnesty and that McCain's alternative to that is more reasonable. Notice that he doesn't endorse McCain's plan but he is asked to make a comparison.

10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney has had more flip-flops than Joseph Smith had wives. "


Joe Lieberman is fiscally conservative like a Jew Banker????

Can we leave the slander thing alone???

11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's in writing therefore it is called libel, idiot.

And 1:50 - Now we shouldn't bring up anything that was 2 years ago?!?! Are you f-ing serious? You are a real tool bag. Wake up; Romney is nothing but a small time s@it-burger who isn't going to win anything. The media doesn't even remember his name. They refer to him as "the (fill in space with religion) guy."


1:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


10:26 AM  
Blogger ace_of_base said...

Can we get a non biased person to administer this blog. If I wanted all the McCain talking points (and only those) I would sign up on his website or join his campaign.

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPECIAL REPORT: More and more hurdles for Mexican truck program

Thursday, March 15, 2007 – In what some believe to be a race to open the border to 100 Mexican-domiciled motor carriers, the program is facing a build-up of hurdles.

The majority of the opposition facing the Department of Transportation in proceeding with the program centers on several unanswered questions. The hurdle that best illustrates this concern is the first lawsuit filed regarding the pilot program.

Lawsuit filed seeking information

A lawsuit filed Tuesday, March 13, against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is all about information.

The nonprofit group filed a Freedom of Information Act request with FMCSA in October 2006 requesting information about activities surrounding any program to evaluate Mexico-domiciled motor carriers that would be permitted to operate beyond the Mexico-United States border zone.

The time the FOI request was filed was the same time that word on the street in Washington, DC, was saying the pilot program brewing within the Department of Transportation was all but a done deal.

The Freedom of Information Act requires a response from agencies within 20 days of receipt of the letter. AHAS received a letter within 10 days explaining a “control number” had been assigned to the request.

According to the lawsuit, more than three months after AHAS sent the FOI request, a second letter from FMCSA’s Freedom of Information Act Officer stated that FMCSA’s response would be delayed.

The letter went on to state the agency would contact AHAS “as soon as possible concerning the approximate number of documents that will need to be examined and the date by which we expect to complete the review.”

On March 13 – nearly five months after the initial FOI request – the lawsuit was filed. AHAS is being represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is not an attempt to stop the Mexican pilot program, but rather a request by AHAS asking the court to force the agency to cough up the requested documents related to the program.

Senator launches ‘inquiry’

The day after the AHAS lawsuit was filed, U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-AR, sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters that, according to a press release issued by his office, will start an “inquiry” into the program. And, he wants information updates on directives facing the DOT.

Pryor’s frustration with the way the program has been handled was clearly stated in his letter to Peters.

“As you may recall, during your confirmation hearing ... I expressed my interest and concern about a rumored pilot program that would allow Mexican domiciled trucks to operate beyond their current scope of authority,” Pryor wrote in his letter.

“During my questioning, you clearly stated that you questioned staff at DOT about the pilot program and were told that there was no immediate plan to implement such a program. You also stated that you would get down to the bottom of the ‘so-called’ rumors surrounding the issue.”

Pryor reminded Peters that he concluded his questioning in her confirmation hearing by stating that he would appreciate having a dialogue with the DOT and other agencies that “may be” developing this program.

“Unfortunately, I’ve yet to hear from you or FMCSA regarding this pilot program,” Pryor wrote.

Despite the fact Pryor has not received information about the program from Peters, he has looked into the recently announced proposed pilot program.

“As you can imagine, I still have many questions regarding this program and am most concerned about potential safety and security risks that may come with its implementation,” he wrote to Peters.

“The Department’s failure to communicate the plan to roll out this program has frustrated me. I believe there are other members on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology and in the Senate that share my concerns.”

Pryor asked Peters to look at legislation passed in October 2006, which included three directives for the DOT, and update him on its progress. The legislation included:

A directive for the DOT to issue regulations to verify legal status of all licensed commercial drivers;
A directive for the DOT to develop commercial driver’s license antifraud programs; and
The final directive was for the DOT to issue guidelines for federal, state and local law enforcement personnel on how to identify noncompliance with federal laws uniquely applicable to commercial motor vehicle and commercial motor vehicle drivers engaged in cross border traffic.
Pryor reminded Peters these directives are to be completed within 18 months of the signing of the law.

Senate committee fishes for answers

The Arkansas senator wasn’t stepping out on a limb when he said other senators may also have questions they want answered about the proposed pilot program.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, called for a hearing the same day word got out about the program. The hearing was held March 8.

Murray gave some background and the criteria and requirements the DOT is obligated to meet before opening the border.

“Sen. (Richard) Shelby (D-AL) and I drafted a very comprehensive provision to address the many critical safety concerns surrounding Mexican trucks without including an outright prohibition on Mexican trucks entering our country,” Murray explained.

“Our provision included dozens of reasonable safety requirements that the DOT and the Mexican authorities would have to meet before long-haul Mexican trucks could have access to our entire interstate highway system. We sought to address each of the many concerns raised by the DOT Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office and others.”

Murray acknowledged that the Bush administration certified that all of the criteria in the Shelby-Murray provisions – now known as Part 350 of the 2002 Transportation Appropriations legislation – had been met.

However, since the border is not opening to all Mexican-domiciled motor carriers, Murray questioned the administration’s real intentions behind the pilot program.

“As I look at how this pilot project is structured, I’m concerned that DOT may be deliberately allowing only the top Mexican truck companies to participate in a pilot project simply to skew the results so the outcome looks better,” Murray said.

“That makes me wonder if this pilot project is really designed just to produce a pre-ordained conclusion.”

Inspector General called in

A hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit on March 13 revealed yet another approach by lawmakers attempting to get some answers about the pilot program.

Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-MN, chairman of House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, agreed that the DOT has made progress in complying with the various requirements established under Section 350.

“Yet, as we will hear from the testimony of several witnesses today, unanswered questions remain about whether adequate systems are in place to both make sure Mexican carriers meet these safety requirements beforethey are granted long-haul operating authority, and that they continue to be held to the same strict federal standards that govern U.S. commercial truck operations throughout their participation in the pilot,” Oberstar said at the subcommittee hearing.

Because of that concern, Oberstar and Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-OR, requested the DOT Inspector General conduct a separate review of the first six months of the pilot program to determine whether DOT has established sufficient controls to ensure that the 100 carriers participating in the pilot program are in full compliance with all U.S. federal motor carrier safety laws.

In particular, the Inspector General is requested to:

Investigate what checks are in place to ensure that Mexican drivers are in compliance with U.S. hours-of-service laws, both while operating in the U.S. and prior to reaching the border;
Determine what oversight and control measures are in place to ensure that the Mexican carriers’ drug and alcohol testing programs are at least equivalent to the U.S. testing regime;
Identify the process by which carriers participating in the pilot program obtain insurance issued by a U.S. company, and any challenges to such efforts; and
Report any problems with inaccurate or incomplete data on vehicles and drivers submitted by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to the Department of Transportation.
It’s not all one-sided; Republicans call for answers, too

While Democrats may be getting a lot of the limelight when it comes to opposition of the pilot program, it is far from being a partisan effort. Rep. Ted Poe, R-TX, wants to know what is in it for the U.S. to open the border to Mexican trucks.

“Under this year-long pilot program, 100 Mexican companies will have unlimited access to haul international cargo throughout the United States. What does the United States get out of it?” Poe asked in a statement posted on his Web site.

With 100 companies having “free rein” to come and go across the border, Poe is concerned that there is no way to ensure these regulations are met while maintaining the security of our country.

“This sounds good for Mexico – not so good for the US. Now we are going to have thousands of polluting, overweight, Mexican trucks that are mechanical nightmares, being driven by individuals that may not be able to read a street sign on our highways,” he wrote.

“Once again, our government seems to be more concerned about Mexico than it is about our nation, our highways or our people.”

Where does this all lead?

Lawmakers are holding these hearings, asking the hard questions and call for investigations all in an effort to get answers. Depending on those answers and what the lawmakers believe is in the best interest of U.S. citizens, legislation of some sort could follow, according to Rod Nofziger, government affairs specialist with the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

Meanwhile, while all these hearings are being held and questions being asked, OOIDA has been busy taking a long-hard look at the program as well.

“We’re researching our opportunities to stop the advancement of this program,” Nofziger said. “We’re actively investigating all legislative and legal avenues.”

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Romneyites: just keep pretending that all of the criticism of Romney is coming from McCain. The reality is that everyone thinks he's a shameless pandering flip-flopper.

It doesn't matter if we're undecided, Giuliani supporters, Gilmore supporters, or Brownback supporters. Everyone is sick of Mitt and his flip-flops.

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is this GREAT new tool when using the internet. They are called "links". You may want to Google it.

10:14 AM  
Blogger Brent Oleson said...

I love it: Romney grows hard on...

You CC guys, crack me up!

10:32 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Buy YouTube Views. This is the newest way of enhancing the Google authority. To understand more keep reading this website. buy youtube subscribers

10:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

  • Caucus Coolerisms
  • The Cooler Line

    Mike Huckabee 10-9
    Mitt Romney 3-1
    Fred Thompson 9-1
    John McCain 9-1
    Rudy Giuliani 12-1
    Ron Paul 12-1
    Duncan Hunter 98-1
    The Cooler line is an exclusive creation of Caucus Cooler and will be updated as the political environment changes.
    It is an unscientific assessment of the Iowa Caucus (not the Presidential race as a whole) from an insiders view at the given time. The line IS NOW mathematically accurate but is NOT intended for gambling purposes. Information may only be reproduced with credit to the Caucus Cooler.